To be clear, I agree with Mr. Moroney that Islam is "at war with itself" ...For every one Moslem terrorist that an American soldier manages to kill in Iraq - Moslems themselves are killing 100 Moslems (mostly civilians). The greatest enemy of the Moslem is the Moslem - The Koran incites an equal opportunity of death, destruction and terrorism upon its own citizens and adherents.

On the 80% figure I cite above - I see the overwhelming majority of those deaths in Arabia and among the Persians as coming at the hands of other Moslems.

Sadly, that 1 to a 100 stat will probably hold true. We'll get 2 million to 3 million guilty terrorists over the next 10 to 30 years and then the 400 million folks in the region will basically be turning on each other - As they will in mass if the Democrats ever succeed in getting us out of Iraq.

The only way to prevent this is via a brutal enforcement of a kind of Pax Romana - which is no longer in the West's DNA. IMO, all possible overt applications of brutal justice were wrung out of the West during the 300 years since the enlightenment. I'm not saying this as a complaint, just as an observation.


Three Soldier Dad

All the best, Chuck

I'm familiar with the term and its historical origins. However, I don't see how it applies here. Could you elaborate?

Regards,
Aric

There is an interesting proverb of Solomon's in the book of Ecclesiastes that says...

"Because of the sentence against an evil work is not executed quickly, therefore the heart of the sons of men are given fully to do evil."

Eccl. 8:11


.

Rome kept the peace for centuries because folks were afraid of Rome. They didn't obey Rome due to Rome's good-natured philanthropy and kindness... Bad guys didn't want to mess with them. - Rome was a hardcore nasty iron monster. Who is Rome in the world today? Perhaps, America - but, we're way too deeply in touch with our feminine side.

A modern version of an applied Pax Romana policy would be rapid summary executions of guilty insurgents - fast trials and public hangings. Dresden-like carpet bombing of high density terrorist areas, a significant revision or our soldiers ROE - For example - civilians become human shields for terrorists - shoot them, too...The shutting down of Al Jazeera and other enemy propoganda...If the enemy hides in a Mosque - Raze it with them inside, maybe even the explosion of a Nuke in the desert - as a warning shot...etc, etc, etc.

Basically quick and swift justice - running the risk that indeed the innocent will at times be hurt - no doubt, life is messy - But, skipping the mea culpas and switching the war bias to ensure that the guilty are NEVER returned to the general population. Wipe their silly smiles off their faces...

Here's a thought - if the media is totally against America when we don't bring justice to the guilty because we want to ensure that the innocent are not hurt - then what is the down side if we flip the equation? If they are against us either way, then let's at least apply force in such a way that inspires fear among the terrorists. We may also want to put some of the media on trial for aiding and abetting the enemy.

IMO, the Arab and Persian understand only one thing. One thing - force. Nasty force. Where they are seeing their buddies dying - lots of their brethren going to Allah.

As noted, right now the resolution in the West does not exist. Someday I think that may change - when we are fighting for our survival.

To put down a rabid dog or a pack of rabid dogs is actually a mercy killing. Mercy for the community and mercy for the dogs. As a good neighbor, the best way for me to care for the terrorist or the insurgent is to allow my military to put him down...As brutal as is necessary to get the job done.

I don't think we threaten - we simply and quietly execute. Shock and awe shouldn't just be fireworks and a lot of sound and fury. It needs to be bloody and really frightening.

We're a ways from that kind of resolve.


Three Soldier Dad...

All the best, Chuck

Radical Islam should be killed.
 

Hi Folks,

I am an Indonesian and migrate to the US. I am a catholic and chinese decent. I am a living witness of mass genocide toward indonesian chinese and christian. Over 1,000, Indonesian chinese were burnt alive, killed and raped. I saw many churches burnt down and many priests killed.

In Indonesia, it's true war between christian and islam. Indonesia is a breeding ground for jihad people. Many of the leaders are from arab and became indonesian citizen. As Indonesian Govt said they fought terrorism but I doubt that. Because 95% of Govts milliary and employees are islam. Heck, even they sent / supplied Jihad people to war with Christian people in Ambon. It was very big tragedy.

Also, All Jemaah Islamiah should be prosecuted and hang dead.

--anton
PS: Islam that I refer here is Radical Islam.

The paradox that you present, I think, represents the problem we are facing with Islam/Muslims. In part the answer could preserve our freedoms or enslave us.

It reminds me of the SCOTUS majority opinion on Plessy v. Ferguson, Even though a decission is wrong, it is a better alternative than the correct decission (allowing segregation or integrating with all the violence it would have caused at the time).

"This the rub", Shakespeare.

Lets put morality aside for a sec and look at capability first...could we intern this large number (hundreds of thousands, if not millions of people) even if we wanted to? I doubt it. And even if you could it doesn't solve your problem it just makes it worse. Refugee camps are the biggest terrorist recruting grounds and havens in the world. Its like cutting yourself open to dig out a cancer...you're more likely to just aggrevate the condition and even if you get the cancer you'll likely die from the infection.

What about mass deportation? I think thats more feasable, but even worse in terms of long term consequences. You'd eradicate whatever moderation exists in Islam and completely confirm the radical position that the US is at war with the whole of Islam. Every fence-sitting Muslim in the world would become an enemy and then you're off to the genocidal races. To say nothing of the fact that you'd be driving the most skilled and by extension dangerous Muslims in the world (those with knowledge of America, with technical training and degrees, with English language experience, etc) into the cause of jihad.

What about if we just interned or deported the recent immigrants from certain large Islamic communities (Detroit, Brooklyn, LA, etc)? I don't think that works either for the same reasons stated above (destroying the Muslim center, providing new potent recruits to the jihad), plus you'd be unlikely to get the real terrorists anyway. The 9/11 bombers lived in Palm Beach, not the Islamic neighborhoods in Brooklyn.

So, maybe I'm dodging the ethical question, but I'd oppose those policies on practical grounds. Certainly they could happen though.

I would agree with your statement on what is possible. UBL is a smart dude and his grand strategy to collapse the global economy (which is in direct symbosis with the American economy) is a good one. I'm not so sure I'd phrase it as "Depression-era subsistence" but certainly we're talking about a catastrophic drop in standard of living.

Ya know, I tell my fellow liberals all the time: jihadism can't defeat America, but it can kill liberalism. It can create such chaos and insecurity that we will recoil into a security state and it will take human civilization decades or centuries, if ever, before the beauty of a culture fundamentally based on individual freedoms ever graces the earth again. (Incidentally, Eisenhower had the same fears about a Nazi victory in WWII.) If you don't want to live in some kind of new dark ages with authoritarian/corporate feudalism tomorrow, you need to get on board with aggressive worldwide counterterrorism today because we are in a life-and-death race to stop the jihadists from getting a nuclear weapon.

I'm musing now. Probably because I've been watching too much Battlestar Galactica (great show, gets at alot of these same issues)...let me get back on point.

To sum up, I think we're going to risk things (and adjust tactics to compensate for those risks) in order to win the war and preserve American culture as we know it, but if we're not willing to take that risk then America isn't worth saving anyway. Speaking for my own person and without disrespect to anyone who thinks different (God knows these are hard questions), I'd rather fight the harder fight with honor than have my kids grow up with the moral stain of some of the more expedient solutions suggested in this thread. Maybe I'm a foolish Jeffersonian idealist, but I think its worth the risk to try and preserve the flower of our society.

Couple thoughts...

• In my opinion, the primary error of a liberal worldview is that it errs with respect to the nature of man - IMO, man is not naturally good - Man is fallen. We commence with goodwill, but the State must learn quickly from a worthy foe to prepare for violence. Islam is a society that is totally ruled by fear - If I may say so, it is the quintessential opponent of darkenss - If it is possible to fight the darkness, we are. We are even now in a fight for our lives against this ominous foe. I am voicing perhaps an old notion from the West's chivalrous past. X-Factor, you seem to express the West's 18th century enlightenment voice - Man can be reformed with enough TLC. I am more closely aligned with the 15th century - Man at times must be taught by others to recognize his own best interests - by the rod.
• Freedom is for men who can restrain themselves from evil...Our future to a large extent depends on what we decide - we need to do good in the world - What we need today is a Jonathan Edwards like character - We have a moral and spiritual issue to resolve among ourselves. We need a kind of great awakening. We need to do some deep soul searching.
• The solution that some have thrown out, including myself - has to do with looking at our situation the way it is...not the way we hope it will be.

X-Factor, I do admire your hope against hope attitude - It's very Don Quijote-like. That worked for me during my 20s and 30s - I'm getting old and perhaps dark in my views of man's nature. I see things today without the rose colored glasses. I see the innocent suffering under the increasingly dominant arm of Islam. Pacifying this force seems increasingly futile and dangerous.

As I've said several times, I hope I'm wrong. This is one argument I'd love to lose.

Three Soldier Dad...

All the best, Chuck

While an immigrant can be deported, what about local citizens that are converts? The radical salafist/jihadist ideology is the root of the problem. Even if we managed to make the United States completely free of any muslims, there is no way to completely secure the country. Our borders and vast and all it takes is one successful infiltration and violent act. Internally a few disillusioned citizens can do the same too. The ideology is out there and there is no way to shield anyone from that information.

I think we need to focus on what we do well and improve upon that. Unlike the socialist setup of Europe that has failed miserably to integrate people, we've done an admirable job. The muslim population in the world is not homogeneous racially, ethnically, linguistically, and socio-economically. While the discussions eventually zero in on Arabs and Persians, they're not even the largest muslim population in the world. South and South East Asia has the largest.

There is no shotgun approach IMHO. Plus, I do not trust government or people to the point where I would be willing to live in a police state. The more expectations and responsibilities we heap upon government, the more inefficient it gets, especially with the unrealistic expectations of absolute security. We have the economic muscle, military muscle, and resources on our side. If fear drives us to the point of virtual isolation from the world with loss of domestic civil liberties, we will not have the same reach or power in the world. There is no way to completely protect anyone and just like driving (oversimplified analogy) we need to factor in the risks of living in a free society. Should we pursue and kill/convince/isolate those who seek to hurt us? Absolutely. Not at the cost of the very identity of the United States of America, though.

Ditto.

These are good points...I hope you're right. Of course, hope is not a strategy. When I see bad things coming and someone says (1) the bad things aren't coming or (2) the bad things are coming but we can handle it.

I hope you're right.

Three Soldier Dad...

P.S. I wasn't recommending trashing the constitution or the adoption of an American version of National Socialism - This is a distortion. What made the Nazi's so evil was their penchant for (1) war at others expense, (2) racism and the (3) libeling and (4) liquidation of an innocent race. Actually, the point I endeavored to make was we may need to dramatically step up our vigor in employing every creative means possible to preclude a Trojan Horse in our midst; which - unless we do something - seems all but inevitable. We need to be absolutely vigilant and yes we need to enforce all the laws currently on the books. We may need to do all the things we've done in other times during our history to protect ourselves - and, because the threat is so great - maybe we will need to do more. I also agree that government is not good at delivering any of these things...Not very comforting.

I have not suggested that we do anything of the sort.

On the other hand, I think that it would be prudent to do some worst case planning. As noted, with age comes pragmatism and reality, except for the most diehard of libs.

I also think that most of the American Muslims, even the more radical ones, would be ripe for recruitment as anti-radical insurgents, if they saw the dichotomy of the Muslim states as practiced, rather than as preached.

If you want to look at historical examples, I further recommend examining treatment of Loyalists during the Revolutionary War and Unionists in the Confederacy (or Confederate sympthizers in the North).

I would rather fight those who have no honor without it myself, rather than see my children not grow up at all. Sometimes, you have to amputate a limb to save the patient. Did Lincoln destroy the Union when he suspended Constitutional rights and freedoms?

TR

Glad to see you've changed your mind about our greatest President! :D

I did not say that.

I will grant you that I believe he was better than Jimmy Carter.

TR

To be clear, I wasn't implying that you had. I was responding to the general issue your rhetorical question raised, not to you in particular.

I don't want to give the impression that a) I believe anyone here has anything but good intentions or b) I don't think anything needs to be done. I already mentioned a couple of pragmatic policies I think would be appropriate (domestic CT agency ala MI5, beefed up surveillance capability to include more judges to speed up the warrant process, etc) and your notion on recruiting American Muslims is another one. I think its important to distinguish, as Peregrino said, between policies that enforce our existing laws and ones that rewrite them.

As for worst case planning, certainly I'm all for that too, but even in the worst case there's still lines we shouldn't cross and creative tactics that we can use to avoid having to cross them.

My concern is that we don't seriously damage half a millenium (at a minimum) of evolution towards a better world (from the Protestant Reformation to the Enlightenment to present day America) out of panic.

I know we made amends for Lincoln's suspension of habeus corpus and the Japanese internment after the threats had abated, but still we need to be very careful its a slippery slope.

We amputate one limb for this enemy and what about the next one? Or the enemy after that? Again, like Peregrino said, we can win and still fail.

Nevermind that I think some of the harsher methods won't work anyway. The more overtly draconian in dealing with our own Muslim citizenry we get the more we'll just be playing to the jihadists' hand and helping radicalize the fence-sitters both at home and abroad. I'm going to paraphrase Peregrino one more time since his last post was so good: the key to the fight is proving our way of life is better, not confirming the enemies' lies about it.

Well written. I agree ...I'm almost persuaded to take back some of my harsh exhortations. I love our country, my family and my fellow citizens....

I'm deathly concerned, however. I dare say I don't think we have had or will ever have an enemy like this one again in our history.

Couple thoughts...

• America is special - We need to take care not to damage our freedom and liberties
• We do need to think through our contigencies - Once hell breaks loose - Hell is upon us.
• We need to work with the American Islamic community to recognize how to preserve their best interests in America.
• We need to be infinitely vigilant to preserve our freedoms and way of life - to enforce the laws we have and reorganize our capabilities to protect ourselves.

Everything is in God's hands.

Three Soldier Dad...

All the best, Chuck

Wallstreet Journal - Bomb Iran
 

The Case for Bombing Iran
I hope and pray that President Bush will do it.

BY NORMAN PODHORETZ
Wednesday, May 30, 2007 12:01 a.m. EDT

Although many persist in denying it, I continue to believe that what Sept 11, 2001, did was to plunge us headlong into nothing less than another world war. I call this new war World War IV, because I also believe that what is generally known as the Cold War was actually World War III, and that this one bears a closer resemblance to that great conflict than it does to World War II. Like the Cold War, as the military historian Eliot Cohen was the first to recognize, the one we are now in has ideological roots, pitting us against Islamofascism, yet another mutation of the totalitarian disease we defeated first in the shape of Nazism and fascism and then in the shape of communism; it is global in scope; it is being fought with a variety of weapons, not all of them military; and it is likely to go on for decades.

What follows from this way of looking at the last five years is that the military campaigns in Afghanistan and Iraq cannot be understood if they are regarded as self-contained wars in their own right. Instead we have to see them as fronts or theaters that have been opened up in the early stages of a protracted global struggle. The same thing is true of Iran. As the currently main center of the Islamofascist ideology against which we have been fighting since 9/11, and as (according to the State Department's latest annual report on the subject) the main sponsor of the terrorism that is Islamofascism's weapon of choice, Iran too is a front in World War IV. Moreover, its effort to build a nuclear arsenal makes it the potentially most dangerous one of all.

The Iranians, of course, never cease denying that they intend to build a nuclear arsenal, and yet in the same breath they openly tell us what they intend to do with it. Their first priority, as repeatedly and unequivocally announced by their president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, is to "wipe Israel off the map"--a feat that could not be accomplished by conventional weapons alone.

See the rest of the ariticle...It's quite insightful.

http://opinionjournal.com/federation.../?id=110010139

Three Soldier Dad...Chuck

.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/art...nding_war.html

May 30, 2007
Unending War
By Cal Thomas

Before Congress adjourned last week on another of its lengthy holidays, Speaker Nancy Pelosi repeated a phrase she has previously used about the war in Iraq. She again referred to it as "the Bush policy of unending war in Iraq."

She got it partly right. It is an unending war, at least until one side vanquishes the other side. There will be no truce in this war; no "38th Parallel" as with the two Koreas. This war will be unending, not because of the "Bush policy," but because of the Islamofascists whose jihad they believe is a direct order from their "compassionate and merciful" God. Some compassion; some mercy.

Were the dominant surrender wing of the Democratic Party to have its way, American troops would immediately come home, causing all of Iraq to devolve into murderous chaos. There would be religious retribution against those who not only worship differently from the majority, but also the murder of "collaborators," meaning those who voted, assisted in the writing of Iraq's constitution and helped the U.S. while trying to help themselves.

As the Pentagon reportedly drafts scenarios related to U.S. troop withdrawal, the enemy plans for victory. Al-Qaida's number two (an appropriate designation for those who can remember junior high humor), Ayman al-Zawahiri, has urged his supporters to extend the "holy war" to other Middle Eastern countries. Zawahiri sent a letter to the leader of al-Qaida in Iraq, claiming al-Qaida is defeating U.S. forces and urging followers to expand their campaign of terror. Clearly, Zawahiri sees this as an unending war. He is not planning a pullback of his forces, but urging them on.

In Lebanon, a country that until last summer's disastrous war between Israel and Hezbollah had enjoyed a level of peace and prosperity, Islamic forces in the siege at the Nahr al-Bared refugee camp reportedly have spent months digging underground bunkers in advance of an anticipated battle they promise will last "two years or more." The Sunday Telegraph reports Shihab al-Qaddour, the deputy leader of the Fatah al Islam group (another number two), said his band of several hundred "battle-hardened" fighters had built extensive subterranean fortifications. Fatah's military commander is quoted as saying his group is "ready to blow up every place in Lebanon."

Unending.

The SITE Institute, which monitors jihadist Web sites from its base in the U.S., reports a flood of support for Fatah al Islam from members of Internet forums affiliated with al-Qaida since fighting broke out a little more than a week ago. Democrats repeatedly say we should only be fighting al-Qaida, so does that mean we should invade Lebanon? Since al-Qaida is in Iraq, shouldn't we continue the fight there until we and the Iraqis prevail?

This political battle in America isn't about al-Qaida and it isn't about victory, otherwise Democrats would be trying to help their country win in Iraq, not just for the sake of Iraq, but for their country's sake. Instead, the liberal and controlling wing of their party cares more about political victory here than ending this war with victory for Iraq, establishing a second democracy in the region and teaching the jihadists a lesson they will not soon forget.

Wars are frustrating. People die. Mistakes are made. The United States has made many mistakes in previous wars, but the nonstop media weren't broadcasting them in real time, as they are in this one. And where is the media balance depicting honor and heroism?

The Iraq war is not like Vietnam. We can't pull out until stability is achieved and the terrorists lose. Vietnamese communists didn't come after us when that war ended, but Islamic terrorists will and are coming after us. They will be emboldened to kill more than the 3,000 who died on September 11 if we don't demonstrate resolve at least equal to theirs.

Among America's past enemies, only Japan had a religious motivation for fighting us. Douglas MacArthur rightly separated religion from state when he was in charge of Japan's reconstruction. That is a worthy objective in this war, but first we have to win it, or it will truly be unending until they win it.

CalThomas@tribune.com

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/art...leaving_i.html

May 30, 2007
The Hard Truth About Leaving Iraq
By Ed Koch

To those who believe that when America leaves Iraq, Islamic terrorists will be satisfied and stop fighting, I say this: wake up. The hard truth is that if we leave Iraq, the terrorists will continue their attacks on Americans everywhere, including our homeland. And they will use Iraq as the new base of their terrorist regime.

In a May 28th New York Times article, reporters Michael Moss and Souad Mekhennet provided a chilling report on what the future holds. The article begins, "When Muhammad al-Darsi got out of prison in Libya last year after serving time for militant activities, he had one goal: killing Americans in Iraq. A recruiter...told him he was not needed in Iraq. Instead, he was drafted into the war that is seeping out of Iraq. A team of militants from Iraq had traveled to Jordan, where they were preparing attacks on Americans and Jews..."

In other words, the terrorist jihad will continue and many of the terrorists will be those who are now fighting in Iraq. It cannot be stated often enough that the goal of the Islamic terrorists is the destruction of Western civilization and the restoration of the caliphate. The caliphate would unite all Muslims in one theocratic state, running from and including Spain to Indonesia, encompassing nearly 1.4 billion Muslims.

In a Times article on May 27th by Michael Gordon and Alissa Rubin, they report, "'Many militias and terrorist groups are just waiting for the Americans to leave,' said Salim Abdullah, the spokesman for the Iraqi Accordance Front, the largest Sunni Arab group in the parliament." The article continues, "A bare majority of Iraq's 275-member parliament recently signed a petition promoted by Mr. Sadr that called for a timetable for American troops to depart. Even so, the petition said the Americans should not leave until Iraqi security forces were ready to take over the job...[A Shiite tribal sheik said] 'But leaving, withdrawing completely from Iraq, that means erasing Iraq from the map.'"

The article reported on a poll taken by ABC News in Baghdad which showed, "About 64 percent of Baghdad residents [polled in February and March] said American forces should remain until security was restored...or until Iraqi forces could operate independently."

Everyone, including the president and his advisers, and of course, his Democratic opponents, recognize that the heretofore efforts and tactics of the U.S. have not prevailed and must change. Republican Senate leader Mitch McConnell said recently, "I think that the handwriting is on the wall that we are going in a different direction in the fall, and I expect the president to lead it." The "surge," an increase of 30,000 American soldiers on the ground, will be over by then. If it works, we can all admit our doubts that it would.

What will the "different direction" that McConnell referred to be? The radical Democratic left inside the Congress led by Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Majority Leader Harry Reid and their supporters believe that the U.S. should get out now and certainly no later than early next year. From the administration come vague comments that there may be a reduction of 100,000 troops in the wind sometime in 2008. The Times reports in a May 26th article by David E. Sanger and David S. Cloud, "The Bush administration is developing what are described as concepts for reducing American combat forces in Iraq by as much as half next year, according to senior administration officials in the midst of the internal debate."

In my judgment, were it possible to remain in Iraq and accomplish the obvious goals of bringing a true peace among the warring parties -- Sunni, Shiite and Kurd -- with a stable central government accepted by all, that would, of course, be ideal. But the Shiite majority does not want to forgive the Sunnis who oppressed them for so many years, and will not share government power or oil revenues with them. The Sunnis, who are 20 percent of the population, appear to be militarily more capable than the Shia and are primarily responsible for the car bombs and the improvised explosive devices that have killed American soldiers and Iraqis, both military personnel and civilians. It is devastating for American soldiers to learn that those serving in the Iraqi army, being trained by and fighting alongside American soldiers, cannot be trusted.

A May 28th Times article by Michael Kamber reported on an incident in February "When [American] soldiers killed a man setting a roadside bomb. When they searched the bomber's body, they found identification showing him to be a Sergeant in the Iraqi army." Kamber quotes an American soldier, "I thought 'what are we doing here? Why are we still here?...We're helping guys that are trying to kill us. We help them in the day. They turn around at night and try to kill us."

My own view is that the administration should demand the Iraqi government pass the power and oil sharing changes immediately, and if it doesn't, we should get out immediately. Further, and I have stated it many times, we should give our regional Arab and NATO allies an ultimatum that if they don't come in now with troops, we will leave immediately.

Waiting for the Iraqi army to be battle ready is like waiting for Godot. They seem to know how to kill U.S. soldiers and terrorize each other and innocent civilians, but are unable to keep the peace.

Many Americans refuse to believe the Islamic terrorists are a threat to the free world and those who talk of the danger are thought of as war mongers. They simply refuse to take them at their word as many refused to take Hitler's warnings in Mein Kampf seriously. In the Times article of May 29th, written by Michael Powell, he quotes a woman in Atlanta asking candidate Giuliani, "Why does so much of the world hate us? Haven't we failed to understand Arab grievances? We misinterpret their word 'jihad' which is not necessarily a hostile word." Truly an Alice In Wonderland view.

A terrorist recently convicted in Great Britain was deported to Jamaica after trial. The Times reports in an article of May 26th by Alan Cowell, "Mr. Faisal had been convicted in February 2003 of soliciting murder and inciting racial hatred...urging his followers to kill Hindus, Christians, Jews and American citizens...During Mr. Faisal's trial, prosecutors played a videotape showing him telling 150 young followers after the Sept. 11 attacks in the United States that the Koran justified attacks on non-Muslims. He was also heard to promise teenage Muslim boys that their reward in paradise would be 72 virgins if they died as religious martyrs."

You can't make this stuff up. Will we and the rest of the Western world wake up in time so that we can survive the 30-year war that will take place after we leave Iraq? They want to kill us, and apparently, many Americans don't believe it.

One more thought. If we stay, we should tell the Iraqi people in each province that if a significant number of them support the insurgents and terrorists against our soldiers, or if a significant number of them do not step forward and assist us by providing information to protect us from the insurgents and terrorists, we will leave that province and not protect them from those who want to kill them in a religious civil war. Perhaps the recognition that U.S. soldiers will no longer be considered expendable may raise thoughts of cooperation, if only for their own self-protection.

Ed Koch is the former Mayor of New York City.

I don't know if this is true; Iran negotiations?

Beautiful shots of the US Navy.
Thanks to all those on board, where ever you may be.

(add the http://)

patdollard.com/2007/05/30/what-no-one-is-telling-you-about-our-talks-with-iran/

Bush may just do well...
 

Pegasus, great little overview of what's going on...

I love this quote...

Thank you...Thank you - I needed to hear that. I really did...Lest I lose my mind as our planet careens toward insanity.

As I and others have noted before, President Bush has made numerous mistakes in the GWOT - mostly in Iraq (that's not to say we shouldn't be there) - However, the best news in the GWOT is THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES IS FIGHTING THE WAR....Needless to say, our CIC has made more errors than precinct moves in this cosmic struggle...If this war were a game, we've had a bad first half...Since this will be The Long War - A bad first five minutes.

Yet, if he (a) Gets Iran to back down or (b) bombs their nuclear capability back into the middle ages - He will have redeemed himself totally in my book...

We have only cursorily engaged the real enemy in this war.


Three Soldier Dad...Chuck

.

The real enemy...
 

Our enemy is a trinity of sorts - a trinity of darkness... And, each needs to be confronted in several dimensions.

The enemy lives in three forms...

• 1. the enemy state - Iran (The Shia religious leadership)
• 2. the residence of enemy doctrine - Sunni fundamentalist mosques and madrasas; primarily in Egypt, The Gaza/West Bank, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia
• 3. the enemy reality - The Arab street (not the Persian street).

IMO, the reality on the Arab street is historical humiliation - primarily ancient familial jeolousy against the Jew and material jeolousy against the West. This sense of humiliation has metastasized into a sociopathic bitter loathing against the West - America imparticularly - and Israel.

Aside from a bitter hatred against the West and Israel - Arabs once activated by Koranic Islam are profoundly self-loathing - Arabs bitterly hate and distrust themselves. They loathe themselves for historic, religious and familial reasons.

This is why the greatest victims of Islamic violence and murder have been Arabs, are Arabs, and will be Arabs.

The most horrific victims of Jihad since Islam's first century until now are Arabs.

Three Soldier Dad...

.

I think that you have to consider conflict across the full spectrum and shape events in the non-combat arena as well.

Conflict is multi-dimensional, with diplomatic/political, informational, economic, as well as military facets.

We need to press foreign governments politically, build allies up, and undermine opponents, while building domestic popular support, as the will of the American people is always the Center of Gravity for us. We need to work the UN better, or at least, as best we can. Tactically, we need to respect and utilize the tribal and religious systems to our advantage.

We have done a terrible job of getting our message out, and the enemy has done a great job of it. The US plays games with and humiliates prisoners and it incites global backlash and two years of media coverage. The enemy saws off civilians' and POWs' heads, drills kneecaps, mutilates bodies, etc., prints and distributes a manual on how to do it, and it gets ten seconds of coverage. The Arab (and Iranian) street needs to get a real news source geared towards them, their culture, and in their language. An anti- al-Jazeera if you will.

We need to find a way to help the HN governments provide economic opportunity and create a middle class in Muslim societies. Their own governments tend to be corrupt and to see graft as a way of life. Look at Yassir Arafat's fortune. How do you think he earned it? While his people lived in abject poverty. And the fat bastard was hailed as a hero when he died. Sanctions need to be imposed on our opponents. How did Sadaam and how do the Iranians continue to receive arms shipments and nuclear processing equipment? I would board, inspect, and sink any ship destined for those countries carrying war or WMD materials.

On the military side, in addition to everything that we are currently doing, we need to be actively supporting Iranian resistance movements and fomenting revolt in Iran. If they have to expend resources on internal security and further alienate the populace, it takes focus away from WMD programs.

Finally, it occurs to me that if we developed a real alternative energy solution, and exploited our own resources in the interim, the region would be a lot less of a concern to us.

Just a few thoughts that our planners may have missed somewhere along the way.

TR

TR,

On the home front, it seems to me, that partisan political fighting is our worse enemy.

Before I continue, allow me to expand that. I was reading a article on the cost of the war at home. Not many people felt the war or it's impact at home. Life just goes on as usual. The American people are pretty isolated with the day to day aspects of the war. That allows politicians to play political football with the war. That in a way aids the enemy. The media also wanting to shape "public opinion" does the same.

I don't think our current political system is capable of running a effective war which is carried on for any duration. Regardless of the planning, the implementation, the achievements or events as they unfold will not be shown in a positive light. The political value for those who seek re-election or political control will out weigh the need for national unity during the time of war.

We have a great system, it is just not for fighting a war.

If we REALLY get hurt - I mean WMD hits us or where tens of thousands die and everyone feels threatened for their welfare....

Our system is perfect for fighting a war... A war of, for, and by the people can be fought brilliantly. Indeed, I think the day will come when it will be.

Our system is perfect for fighting a REAL war... Problem is folks don't recognize that they are in a war - a real war, yet.

YET!

I am pragmatist, regardless of what we call it, Your last sentence defines the problem. We can discuss the meaning of which word correctly describes the conflict but we are ultimately faced with the grim reality of our political system. As TR stated, "......as the will of the American people is always the Center of Gravity for us."

Which means regardless of how we define it, it is our collective view as American People that will define the situation. The "Culture of Defeat" which effectively cause the US to give South Viet-Nam to the communist is a prime example of this. In 1969, we lost over 16,000 Americans to that war. That cost did not motivate our political system to unity but rather seeing the Military victory in RVN as a loss. We are facing the same mechanism here at home today, that was employed in during the Viet-Nam war.

Even at the height of the Civil War, President Lincoln had to deal with McClellan and the copper heads in the North to keep up the fight and maintaining the Union. I can not think of a more sober time in our history when unity was paramount.

TR hit the nail on the head in his last post. I could not agree more.

TR, superb post, my friend.

I bow in your general direction.

I read the following article today in the ostensible "newspaper of record."

I consider it one of the better pieces to appear there recently.



June 3, 2007
The World
Iraq’s Curse: A Thirst for Final, Crushing Victory

By EDWARD WONG
BAGHDAD

PERHAPS no fact is more revealing about Iraq’s history than this: The Iraqis have a word that means to utterly defeat and humiliate someone by dragging his corpse through the streets.

The word is “sahel,” and it helps explain much of what I have seen in three and a half years of covering the war.

It is a word unique to Iraq, my friend Razzaq explained over tea one afternoon on my final tour. Throughout Iraq’s history, he said, power has changed hands only through extreme violence, when a leader was vanquished absolutely, and his destruction was put on display for all to see.

Most famously it happened to a former prime minister, Nuri al-Said, who tried to flee after a military coup in 1958 by scurrying through eastern Baghdad dressed as a woman. He was shot dead. His body was disinterred and hacked apart, the bits dragged through the streets. In later years, Saddam Hussein and the Baath Party crushed their enemies with the same brand of brutality.

“Other Arabs say, ‘You are the country of sahel,’ ” Razzaq said. “It has always been that way in Iraq.”

But in this war, the moment of sahel has been elusive. No faction — not the Shiite Arabs or Sunni Arabs or Kurds — has been able to secure absolute power, and that has only sharpened the hunger for it.

Listen to Iraqis engaged in the fight, and you realize they are far from exhausted by the war. Many say this is only the beginning.

President Bush, on the other hand, has escalated the American military involvement here on the assumption that the Iraqi factions have tired of armed conflict and are ready to reach a grand accord. Certainly there are Iraqis who have grown weary. But they are not the ones at the country’s helm; many are among some two million who have fled, helping leave the way open for extremists to take control of their homeland.

“We’ve changed nothing,” said Fakhri al-Qaisi, a Sunni Arab dentist turned hard-line politician who has three bullets lodged in his torso from a recent assassination attempt. “It’s dark. There will be more blood.”

I first met Mr. Qaisi in 2003 at a Salafi mosque in western Baghdad, when the Sunni Arab insurgency was gaining momentum. He articulated the Sunnis’ simmering anger at being ousted from power. That fury has blossomed and is likely only to grow, as religious Shiite leaders and their militias become more entrenched in the government and as Kurds in the north push to expand their region and secede in all but name.

Caught in the middle of the civil war are the Americans. To Iraq’s factions, they are the weakest of all the armed groups in one crucial respect: their will is ebbing and their time here is limited. That leaves Iraqis more motivated than ever to cling to their weapons, preparing for what many see as an inevitable plunge into the abyss.

“Everyone — the Sunni, the Shia — is playing the waiting game,” an Iraqi leader told me over dinner at his home in the Green Zone. “They’re waiting out the Americans. Everyone is using time against you.”

Much seemed different in April 2003, when the Americans pulled down the statue of Saddam Hussein in Firdos Square and allowed Iraqis to drag it through the streets. It looked like an act of sahel at the time, but the Americans failed to establish total control, as Iraqi history says a conqueror must.

Four years on, Sunni and Shiite attacks against the Americans are expanding. There is little love among Iraqi civilians for the troops, though many fear the anarchy that could follow an American withdrawal.

“I’m still sticking by my principle, which is against the occupation,” Mr. Qaisi said in an interview here while visiting from his new home in Tikrit. “I’m Iraqi, and I think the Iraqi people should have this principle. We have the right to defend our country as George Washington did.”

As long as I have known him, Mr. Qaisi has rejected the idea that the Sunni Arabs are the minority in this country. To him and many other Sunni Arabs, the borders of Iraq do not delineate the boundaries of the war. The conflict is set, instead, against the backdrop of the entire Islamic world, in which demography and history have always favored the Sunnis. That sense of entitlement is fed by the notion that Iraq’s Shiite Arabs are just proxies for Iran’s Persian rulers.

For the Shiites, who make up 60 percent of Iraqis, the unalloyed hostility of the Sunni Arabs only reinforces a centuries-old sense of victimhood. So the Shiite militias grow, stoking vengeance. Through force of arms, and backed by the Americans and Iran, the religious Shiites intend to dominate the country entirely, taking what they believe was stripped from them when their revered leader Hussein was murdered in the desert of seventh-century Mesopotamia.

It was at the site of that ancient bloodletting, Karbala, that I twice witnessed the intense Shiite ache for righteousness and triumph. In early 2004, thousands of young fighters in the Mahdi Army, the militia of the nationalist Shiite cleric Moktada al-Sadr, fought and died in a fevered uprising against the Americans. Last March, the same zealotry showed in a different way, as millions of Shiite pilgrims marched to Karbala’s shrines to commemorate the death of Hussein. They went despite relentless attacks by Sunni Arab suicide bombers. To them, it was all part of the unending war.

“No country in the world is fighting such terrorism,” said Adel Abdul Mehdi, an Iraqi vice president and leader in the Supreme Islamic Iraqi Council, a powerful Shiite party, on the day he made his pilgrimage. “Every time we give more martyrs, we are more determined. This is a big battle, there is no such battle in the world.”

The Shiites have waited centuries for their moment on the throne, and the war is something they are willing to tolerate as the price for taking power, said the Iraqi leader who had invited me to dinner in the Green Zone. “The Shia say this is not exceptional for them, this is normal,” he said.

The belief of the Shiites that they must consolidate power through force of arms is tethered to ever-present suspicions of an impending betrayal by the Americans. Though the Americans have helped institute the representative system of government that the Shiites now dominate, they have failed to eliminate memories of how the first President Bush allowed Saddam Hussein to slaughter rebelling Shiites in 1991. Shiite leaders are all too aware, as well, of America’s hostility toward Iran, the seat of Shiite power, and of its close alliances with Sunni Arab nations, especially Saudi Arabia.

“One day we’ll find that we’ve returned back to 1917,” said Sheik Muhammad Bakr Khamis al-Suhail, a respected Shiite neighborhood leader in Baghdad, referring to the installation here of a Sunni Arab monarchy by the British after World War I. “The pressure of the Arab countries on the American administration might push the Americans to choose the Sunni Arabs.”

Sitting in the cool recesses of his home, the white-robed sheik said he was a moderate, a supporter of democracy. It is for people like him that the Americans have fought this war. But the solution he proposes is not one the Americans would easily embrace.

“In the history of Iraq, more than 7,000 years, there have always been strong leaders,” he said. “We need strong rulers or dictators like Franco, Hitler, even Mubarak. We need a strong dictator, and a fair one at the same time, to kill all extremists, Sunni and Shiite.”

I was surprised to hear those words. But perhaps I was being naïve. Looking back on all I have seen of this war, it now seems that the Iraqis have been driving all along for the decisive victory, the act of sahel, the day the bodies will be dragged through the streets.

===

Didn’t know if this should be under reading lists or here. I posted here in light of the topic.

I’m currently reading “Unholy War – America, Israel, and Radical Islam” by Randall Price. Anyone here read it and have a critique of it?

I think a war on extremism is going on. There are maoists in asia and muslims rebels and seperatists that want to break off parts of the eastern bloc and even parts of China, the Xiang or Jiang province in south west China. There have been christian extremists killing the name of, and anti government extremists blowing up government buildings. Islam has of course been used to justify or rally people to do some of the worst things in modern history. I still believe that the fanactics that really want to create an Islamic Super State world wide that is ruled under Sharia Law is small. I believe it exists and such grand plans are enough to attract followers from all over and to convince some of these to even kill themselves in the pursuit of this global take over. The most fanatical don't think there is a single Muslim run country in the world, none are Islamic enough none are under sharia law strictly enough so to them the entire world is fair game. I am still pretty sure that out of the 1 billion muslims such a small amount want this that it isn't war on Islam.

I believe you are an internet troll.

I believe you came to this website just to incite discussion aimed at discrediting some of us.

I believe you attempt to accomplish this by searching and finding the most controversial threads you can find on the board and posting your worthless diatribe.

I now believe you are now banned.

You now have ample time to go and visit your internet tabloids. Enjoy yourself.

Team Sergeant

Saudi Marriage 'Expert' Advises Men in 'Right Way' to Beat Their Wives
 

islam, such a beautiful religion. I'll be converting tomorrow.:rolleyes:

Team Sergeant






Move over, Dr. Phil, there's a new relationship expert in town.

He's Saudi author and cleric, "Dr." Muhammad Al-'Arifi, who in a remarkable segment broadcast on Saudi and Kuwaiti television in September, counseled young Muslim men on how to treat their wives.

"Admonish them – once, twice, three times, four times, ten times," he advised. "If this doesn't help, refuse to share their beds."

And if that doesn't work?

"Beat them," one of his three young advisees responded.

"That's right," Al-'Arifi said.

Click here to view the segment at MEMRITV.org

He goes on to calmly explain to the young men that hitting their future wives in the face is a no-no.

"Beating in the face is forbidden, even when it comes to animals," he explained. "Even if you want your camel or donkey to start walking, you are not allowed to beat it in the face. If this is true for animals, it is all the more true when it comes to humans. So beatings should be light and not in the face."

His final words of wisdom?

"Woman, it has gone too far. I can't bear it anymore," he tells the men to tell their wives. "If he beats her, the beatings must be light and must not make her face ugly.

"He must beat her where it will not leave marks. He should not beat her on the hand... He should beat her in some places where it will not cause any damage. He should not beat her like he would beat an animal or a child -- slapping them right and left.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,307680,00.html

He is echoing Al Nesa ayat 34, such love. He is also nice enough to demonstrate that a man's live stock is more important that his wife (and daughters).

I don’t think there is another unit in our military that has this caliber of individuals, who can carry such a difficult and thoughtful discussion on this subject. It is not much different from my master seminar class at University of Pennsylvania. I am humbled to be in your company.

I saw the tape of this show at work. The juxtaposition of the modern TV set with plush off-white upholestry and blue carpet just like you'd see on any talk show from the late 1980s and a guy spouting views that haven't changed since the pre-Islamic Bedouins is completely bizarre.

Another shining example of the tolerance of mainstream practitioners (vice extremists) of the "religion of peace"...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22007049/?GT1=10547

Sudan charges Briton with insulting religion
Teacher reportedly allowed class to pick ‘Muhammad’ as teddy bear's name

KHARTOUM, Sudan - A British teacher has been charged with inciting hatred, insulting religion and showing contempt of religious beliefs after her class named a teddy bear Muhammad, state media said on Wednesday.

"Khartoum north prosecution unit has completed its investigation and has charged the Briton Gillian (Gibbons) under Article 125 of the criminal code," SUNA said quoting a senior Justice Ministry official.

It added the file would go before court on Thursday.

In London, a British Foreign Office spokesman confirmed that Gibbons had been charged and officials said Foreign Secretary David Miliband was calling in the Sudanese ambassador over the affair.

"We are surprised and disappointed by this development and the foreign secretary will summon as a matter of urgency the Sudanese ambassador to discuss this matter further," Prime Minister Gordon Brown's official spokesman said.

Earlier on Wednesday, three British embassy officials and a teaching colleague from the Unity High School where Gibbons worked were allowed to visit her for 90 minutes.

"I can confirm that we have met Ms. Gibbons and she said she is being treated well," said British consul Russell Phillips. "We remain in close contact with the Sudanese authorities on this case," he said, declining to give further details.

Gibbons was arrested Sunday and, if found guilty of insulting religion, could be punished with a whipping of up to 40 lashes, a fine or six months in prison.

On Tuesday, a Sudanese embassy spokesman in London had indicated Gibbons might soon be freed.

"The police is bound to investigate," embassy spokesman Khalid al-Mubarak told British Broadcasting Corp. radio. "I am pretty certain that this minute incident will be clarified very quickly and this teacher who has been helping us with the teaching of children will be safe and will be cleared."

Gibbons was arrested after one of her pupils' parents complained, accusing her of naming the bear after Islam's prophet and founder. Muhammad is a common name among Muslim men, but giving the prophet's name to an animal would be seen as insulting by many Muslims.

School apologizes
Several Sudanese newspapers ran a statement Tuesday reportedly from Unity High School saying the administration "offers an official apology to the students and their families and all Muslims for what came from an individual initiative." It said Gibbons had been "removed from her work at the school."

In the first official comment on the case, the Sudanese Foreign Ministry on Tuesday played down the significance of the case, calling it "isolated despite our condemnation and rejection of it."

Ministry spokesman Ali al-Sadeq said it was an incidence of a "teacher's misconduct against the Islamic faith" but noted the school's apology.

The statement from the school in newspapers called it a "misunderstanding." It underlined the school's "deep respect for the heavenly religions" and for the "beliefs of Muslims and their rituals," adding that "the misunderstanding that has been raised over this issue leads to divisions that are disadvantageous to the reputation of the tolerant Sudanese people."

The school has closed for at least the next week until the controversy eases. The Unity High School, a private English-language school with elementary to high school levels, was founded by Christian groups, but 90 percent of its students are Muslim, mostly from upper-class Sudanese families.

The school's director, Robert Boulos, told the BBC that the incident was "a completely innocent mistake. Miss Gibbons would have never wanted to insult Islam."

Children reportedly chose name
Gibbons, 54, was teaching her pupils, who are around age 7, about animals and asked one of them to bring in her teddy bear, Boulos said. She asked the students to pick names for it and they proposed Abdullah, Hassan and Muhammad, and in the end the pupils voted to name it Muhammad, he said.

Each child was allowed to take the bear home on weekends and write a diary about what they did with it. The diary entries were collected in a book with the bear's picture on the cover, labeled, "My Name is Muhammad," he said. The bear itself was never labeled with the name, he added.

former colleague of Gibbons, Jill Langworthy, told The Associated Press the diary lesson is a common one in Britain.

"She's a wonderful and inspirational teacher, and if she offended or insulted anybody she'd be dreadfully sorry," said Langworthy, who taught with Gibbons in Liverpool.

There were widespread calls in Britain for Gibbons' release. The Muslim Council of Britain calls upon the Sudanese government to intervene.

"This is a very unfortunate incident and Ms. Gibbons should never have been arrested in the first place. It is obvious that no malice was intended," said Muhammad Abdul Bari, the council's secretary-general.

British opposition Conservative party lawmaker William Hague called on the British government to "make it clear to the Sudanese authorities that she should be released immediately."

"To condemn Gillian Gibbons to such brutal and barbaric punishment for what appears to be an innocent mistake is clearly unacceptable," he said.

Follows cartoon incident
The case recalled the outrage that was sparked in the Islamic world when European newspapers ran cartoons deriding the Prophet Muhammad, prompting sometimes violent protests in many Muslim countries. The prophet is highly revered by Muslims, and most interpretations of the religion bar even favorable depictions of him, for fear of encouraging idolatry or misrepresenting him.

Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir earlier this month suggested he would ban Denmark, Sweden and Norway — where newspapers ran the cartoons — from contributing engineering personnel to a planned U.N.-African Union peacekeeping force in the Sudanese region of Darfur.

Al-Bashir's government already has tense relations with the West, which has widely condemned his regime for alleged abuses in Darfur where more than 200,000 people have died in a conflict that began in early 2003.

Manual of Islamic law
 

War with Islam? Maybe the defensive stance is understanding its war with "us."

I would recommend a guide- Reliance of the Traveller: The Classic Manual of Islamic Sacred Law Umdat Al-Salik. It's all there. But readers be warned...according to Islamic law those trying to understand this Sacred Knowledge for less than holy use are subject to the consequences.

Okay, naming your teddy bear Mohammed is worth 40 lashes.

But if you have sex with your camel, naming the offspring Mohammed is okay.

Wow. What a great culture.

I am sure that the libs and femi-Nazis will love it when it comes here.

TR

Bright spot!
 

Well at least one bright spot - Rosey will be under a burka.


Pete

I want to vomit. Just a little bit. This type of sh-t disgusts me. The willful ignorance of so many people. . . AAAAAHHHH!!! I'm having a hard time bending my head around this one.

I think it ironic that:
"The Unity High School, a private English-language school with elementary to high school levels, was founded by Christian groups, but 90 percent of its students are Muslim, mostly from upper-class Sudanese families."

In all worlds, the side with the butter on it is always recognized.

Books

I was going through and reading some of the quotes from the Republican debate. I thought this one from McCain was interesting.

JOHN McCAIN

"We never lost a battle in Vietnam. It was American public opinion that forced us to lose that conflict. I think it's important for all Americans to understand the fundamental difference. After we left Vietnam, they didn't want to follow us home. They wanted to build their own workers' paradise. If you read Zarqawi, if you read bin Laden, if you read Zawahiri, read what they say. They want to follow us home. They want Iraq to be a base for al-Qaida to launch attacks against the United States. Their ultimate destination is not Iraq. Their ultimate destination is New York City, Washington, D.C., Chicago and Phoenix, Ariz."


R10